RUSHI SAHU AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have been bound over to execute bonds under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE dispute to the village tank which has been recorded in the name of the first party. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate held an enquiry on 5 -9 -52, and held that the opposite parties had the right to fish in the said tank. The Petitioners (who were the second party) however persisted in creating trouble instead of resorting to the Civil Court for settling the dispute The Sub -Inspector of Police deposed that he saw the members of the second party actually digging the tank when he visited the spot on 2 -5 -53. The Magistrate, after recording evidence found that the facts proved were sufficient to justify the inference that there was an apprehension of a reach of the peace as the Petitioners were determined to assert their right to the tank by violence.

(3.) I am satisfied that none of the points raised by Mr. Sahu has any substance. I should also like to note in this connection that the order passed by the Magistrate has spent itself out. The Petitioners were called upon to execute bonds by an order dated 31 -5 -54 to keep the peace for a period of one year, and this order expired over two months ago.